What would falsify creationism?

[AV1611VET]

I think it is important to specify exactly what creationism people are promoting. It's difficult to even say the "Christian view of creationism" as that has many different flavors too.

Isn't "In the beginning, God created ..." good enough for scientists to ascertain?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to science the wind is caused when the butterfly flutters his wings.

That's about right!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sense I am a high school drop out I may not qualify as having a strong science background.

It wouldn't matter.

Henry M. Morris had a strong scientific background, and should he dare question evolution ... well ... he was "just a hydraulics engineer."

Yet our resident weatherman here can challenge us on ice cores and fossil records and geologic columns with no impugnity.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Isn't "In the beginning, God created ..." good enough for scientists to ascertain?

No because you would have to believe the Bible was more than just a book of mythology - which clearly hasn't been demonstrated

 

[asherahSamaria]

You would have to show there is no Creator. Creation is evidence for a Creator. So even evolution is evidence for a Creator because evolution shows how He creates. So evolution is creationism. If you can falsify evolution then that would falsify creationism.

So where did the creator come from - who created him/her/it/them? Without resorting to special pleading please.

 

[AV1611VET]

No because you would have to believe the Bible was more than just a book of mythology - which clearly hasn't been demonstrated

Hasn't been demonstrated to whom? scientists?

What's this then?

1 Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

This is one of the most remarkable and most singular prophecies in the Old Testament. It here most circumstantially foretells a fact which took place three hundred and forty years after the prediction; a fact which was attested by the two nations. The Jews, in whose behalf this prophecy was delivered, would guard it most sacredly; and it was the interest of the Israelites, against whom it was levelled, to impugn its authenticity and expose its falsehood, had this been possible. This prediction not only showed the knowledge of God, but his power. He gave, as it were, this warning to idolatry, that it might be on its guard, and defend itself against this Josiah whenever a person of that name should be found sitting on the throne of David; and no doubt it was on the alert, and took all prudent measures for its own defence; but all in vain, for Josiah, in the eighteenth year of his reign, literally accomplished this prophecy, as we may read, 2Ki 23:15-20.

 

[Larniavc]

Hasn't been demonstrated to whom? scientists?

What's this then?

1 Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

That is a Bible verse. It is not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

So where did the creator come from - who created him/her/it/them? Without resorting to special pleading please.

God is self-existent.

 

[Larniavc]

God is self-existent.

As predicted. Special pleading.

Logic wins, again.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a Bible verse. It is not science.

So that gives scientists the right to say, 'which clearly hasn't been demonstrated'?

 

[Larniavc]

So that gives scientists the right to say, 'which clearly hasn't been demonstrated'?

A Bible verse is not science. I can't think of a more simple way to describe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

As predicted. Special pleading.

special pleading:
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment.

So scientists view creationists, which outnumber them by a few billion or so, as a 'particular interest group'?

 

[Larniavc]

special pleading:
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment.

So scientists view creationists, which outnumber them by a few billion or so, as an interest group?

I never said that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So where did the creator come from - who created him/her/it/them? Without resorting to special pleading please.

God comes from the Throne of God in Heaven. At least that is where you can find Him only you must be Holy to enter into the Throne of God. God Inhabits the Praises of His People. Those who grumble and complain can not enter in.

 

[AV1611VET]

A Bible verse is not science. I can't think of a more simple way to describe it.

So that gives scientists the right to say, 'which clearly hasn't been demonstrated'?

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said that.

Is that a YES or a NO?

 

[AV1611VET]

God comes from the Throne of God in Heaven. At least that is where you can find Him only you must be Holy to enter into the Throne of God.

Evidently some aren't interested in where He is now.

They need to know where He came from.

It's basic physics.

 

[Larniavc]

Is that a YES or a NO?

I don't really know. I do know that saying your god is self-existent is special pleading because the assumption is that nothing can come from nothing... apart from the special case of your god.

This is a platonic example of special pleading.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do know that saying your god is self-existent is special pleading ...

Wow ... just wow.

... because the assumption is that nothing can come from nothing... apart from the special case of your god.

This is a platonic example of special pleading.

I thought the "logic" behind it is that you can't have effects without causes, therefore God is our "first cause"?

So where did the universe come from?

Is it, according to consensus of opinion, "self existent"?

Or do they shun agreeing with that for fear of be accused of "special pleading," and prefer instead to say, "No one knows"?

Like they do with abiogenesis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point was that, since you do not know God, you yourself would be the one imagining there is no God...because that is how imagination works. Those of us who unequivocally know God have nothing to imagine.

My young nephew "knows" this kid called "Johnny".

Only, this "johnny" is an imaginary friend.
You use the word "know", but it's not really a correct word.

You don't "know" this god like you "know" your mother, sister, friends or any other actually demonstrably real people.

When, for example, muslims or hindu's say that they "know" their gods, i'll assume that you won't believe that they are talking about actual gods, but rather things that they imagine or mistaken to be gods, right?

Those who are "of" God, were "with" God. Those who are not "of" God, were created beings, and did not exist before birth.

If you say so.

Not that it means much.